How about we allow the wolf hunting season these people so badly desire, but they have to go into the woods with only their hands. They'll of course be allowed to use whatever tools they fashion while hunting, but that's it.

Ambivalence:They do that in Alaska as well. They have yearly wolf hunting to thin out their numbers so there's more caribou and other wild game available for hunters to kill.

Because the only REAL Apex predator in nature is man.

Yeah, because wolves always go after the alpha male caribou with the big antlers, right?

//well, no, they go after the weak, young, and sick (kind of like Congressional Republicans)////never cry wolf///have no idea if that movie was scientifically accurate//will never ever eat a live mouse, though/but one never knows what might happen

":A few facts -- the wolf population has been stable since 1998 without hunting or trapping. The last Minnesota population survey was completed in 2007, and it established a population range from 2,100 to 3,500 wolves. This year, 400 wolves are expected to be killed during the scheduled season. Another 300 will be killed legally under livestock depredation controls, plus an estimated 300 more will be killed illegally."

Pro-tip:

If you're trying to convince me your position is correct... when you provide "facts"... you should... you know... show me that you didn't pull numbers out of your butt.

FTA:"During the government shutdown of 2011, the compromise five-year wait was stripped away by the (Republican)Legislature. The State Capitol building was closed to the public when the final language was approved."

Satyagraha:FTA:"During the government shutdown of 2011, the compromise five-year wait was stripped away by the (Republican)Legislature. The State Capitol building was closed to the public when the final language was approved."

[images.sodahead.com image 350x342]

/They're just animals for gods sake

They're predators, which in turn keep the other species in check (barring of course random factors like a disease or drought/flood year that keeps their prey at lower populations). They were hunted nearly to extinction in the upper mid-west early last century or so (can't remember exactly since my research paper was done in 2006).

Ranchers biatch about them because of the (potential) economic loss, but in terms of balancing the ecosystem, all predators are invaluable. Humans are the interlopers in their natural territory, not the other way around.

vwarb:How about we allow the wolf hunting season these people so badly desire, but they have to go into the woods with only their hands. They'll of course be allowed to use whatever tools they fashion while hunting, but that's it.

fusillade762:vwarb: How about we allow the wolf hunting season these people so badly desire, but they have to go into the woods with only their hands. They'll of course be allowed to use whatever tools they fashion while hunting, but that's it.

If you're trying to convince me your position is correct... when you provide "facts"... you should... you know... show me that you didn't pull numbers out of your butt.

Frankly the specific numbers don't matter all that much. If there is an important apex predator whose populations, numbering only two or three thousand, are only just recovered after being hunted nearly to extinction -- AND it is already very likely that some will be killed due to livestock depredation laws -- it seems plainly obvious that we should restrict any other activity that will have any impact on their numbers. Their population is not large, even now; WHY should we be allowing people to shoot them at all??

Pray 4 Mojo:":A few facts -- the wolf population has been stable since 1998 without hunting or trapping. The last Minnesota population survey was completed in 2007, and it established a population range from 2,100 to 3,500 wolves. This year, 400 wolves are expected to be killed during the scheduled season. Another 300 will be killed legally under livestock depredation controls, plus an estimated 300 more will be killed illegally."

Pro-tip:

If you're trying to convince me your position is correct... when you provide "facts"... you should... you know... show me that you didn't pull numbers out of your butt.

So they're planning to wipe out 1/2 to 1/3 of the population? Sounds genetically sound to me./not

In Yellowstone, the pronghorn population is critically endangered. Turns out one reason is that coyotes will hunt and kill the calves. The female pronghorns leave newborn calves hidden in the grass while they are grazing, until the calves can keep up with the herd. Coyotes come along and kill the calves. The small (newborn) calves are only big enough to feed a small family pack of coyotes, hence a lot of coyotes can devastate a calving ground.

Since the calves are so small, they are not favorite prey of the wolf packs; however, the coyotes stay away from areas where the wolves have established themselves. Result: The pronghorn calves have a chance to grow up and replenish the herd. A larger wolf pack will not need to eat more than a few pronghorns, since they'd rather take bigger prey (elk, bison) when they can. The net result is that more wolves = more pronghorn.

Gyrfalcon:In Yellowstone, the pronghorn population is critically endangered. Turns out one reason is that coyotes will hunt and kill the calves. The female pronghorns leave newborn calves hidden in the grass while they are grazing, until the calves can keep up with the herd. Coyotes come along and kill the calves. The small (newborn) calves are only big enough to feed a small family pack of coyotes, hence a lot of coyotes can devastate a calving ground.

Since the calves are so small, they are not favorite prey of the wolf packs; however, the coyotes stay away from areas where the wolves have established themselves. Result: The pronghorn calves have a chance to grow up and replenish the herd. A larger wolf pack will not need to eat more than a few pronghorns, since they'd rather take bigger prey (elk, bison) when they can. The net result is that more wolves = more pronghorn.

simplicimus:Pray 4 Mojo: ":A few facts -- the wolf population has been stable since 1998 without hunting or trapping. The last Minnesota population survey was completed in 2007, and it established a population range from 2,100 to 3,500 wolves. This year, 400 wolves are expected to be killed during the scheduled season. Another 300 will be killed legally under livestock depredation controls, plus an estimated 300 more will be killed illegally."

Pro-tip:

If you're trying to convince me your position is correct... when you provide "facts"... you should... you know... show me that you didn't pull numbers out of your butt.

So they're planning to wipe out 1/2 to 1/3 of the population? Sounds genetically sound to me./not

According to numbers apparently pulled from the ass of the person that wrote this.

Regular sport hunting of wolves will allow their numbers to grow and secure their surviving into the future. Its already happen with deer, elk, bears and turkeys in the USA. Sport Hunters not tree huggers tend to be the best stewards of nature. Remember Roosevelt, Audubon, and the other pillars of conservation in America were big game hunters

Mid_mo_mad_man:Regular sport hunting of wolves will allow their numbers to grow and secure their surviving into the future. Its already happen with deer, elk, bears and turkeys in the USA. Sport Hunters not tree huggers tend to be the best stewards of nature. Remember Roosevelt, Audubon, and the other pillars of conservation in America were big game hunters

I understand your point of view, but even without human intervention, the populations would stabilize.

Pray 4 Mojo:simplicimus: Pray 4 Mojo: ":A few facts -- the wolf population has been stable since 1998 without hunting or trapping. The last Minnesota population survey was completed in 2007, and it established a population range from 2,100 to 3,500 wolves. This year, 400 wolves are expected to be killed during the scheduled season. Another 300 will be killed legally under livestock depredation controls, plus an estimated 300 more will be killed illegally."

Pro-tip:

If you're trying to convince me your position is correct... when you provide "facts"... you should... you know... show me that you didn't pull numbers out of your butt.

So they're planning to wipe out 1/2 to 1/3 of the population? Sounds genetically sound to me./not

According to numbers apparently pulled from the ass of the person that wrote this.

That's the problem.

They know about how many wolves are poached. People have already been poaching them, like they poach every animal.

They know about how many wolves are killed for killing cattle each year.

They know how many licenses are being handed out for hunters to hunt wolves. They are guessing how many wolves will be taken.

It looks like they can account for about 600 wolves outside of ordinary game hunting. I don't know how they are estimating the game hunting-- only one per hunter, only so many licenses, and a certain percent will be successful, perhaps? Or perhaps they are allowing a total of 400 wolves to be taken legally, first come first served. Not a hunter, so I don't know how they balance such things out but I know that in Indiana they estimate how many deer will be killed when they allow deer hunting in state parks. Someone's got a formula.

Anyway, I know the first two numbers are easily projected because they have already been doing those things.

I have seen the billboards about this for a while now. Was wondering what it was all about. Sounded like some nutter shiat on the billboards "Stop the DNR from killing the Wolves" but it seems like the licenses are going to actually go out . Meh I don't think the hunting should happen, nor do I think they should have been removed from protected status. Does anything good come out of the government when the public is locked out? Seems the locking out itself is nefarious at the least.

Anyways, I haven't checked out the wolves at the Minnesota Zoo for a while, but the couple that live in Como seem to be pretty cool. White one that is always chilling out and a grey one that loves pacing. Arctic Foxes there are a blast as well. They REALLY love the white bunnies they are given to eat.

BolloxReader:Pray 4 Mojo: simplicimus: Pray 4 Mojo: ":A few facts -- the wolf population has been stable since 1998 without hunting or trapping. The last Minnesota population survey was completed in 2007, and it established a population range from 2,100 to 3,500 wolves. This year, 400 wolves are expected to be killed during the scheduled season. Another 300 will be killed legally under livestock depredation controls, plus an estimated 300 more will be killed illegally."

Pro-tip:

If you're trying to convince me your position is correct... when you provide "facts"... you should... you know... show me that you didn't pull numbers out of your butt.

So they're planning to wipe out 1/2 to 1/3 of the population? Sounds genetically sound to me./not

According to numbers apparently pulled from the ass of the person that wrote this.

That's the problem.

They know about how many wolves are poached. People have already been poaching them, like they poach every animal.

They know about how many wolves are killed for killing cattle each year.

They know how many licenses are being handed out for hunters to hunt wolves. They are guessing how many wolves will be taken.

It looks like they can account for about 600 wolves outside of ordinary game hunting. I don't know how they are estimating the game hunting-- only one per hunter, only so many licenses, and a certain percent will be successful, perhaps? Or perhaps they are allowing a total of 400 wolves to be taken legally, first come first served. Not a hunter, so I don't know how they balance such things out but I know that in Indiana they estimate how many deer will be killed when they allow deer hunting in state parks. Someone's got a formula.

Anyway, I know the first two numbers are easily projected because they have already been doing those things.

Turning wolves into game will ensure less poaching. Big game hunters tend to police themselves very well and will not stand for stealing/poaching of animals. Hunting of wolves will also prevent livestock predation. Wolves need to fear man for their own good

vwarb:How about we allow the wolf hunting season these people so badly desire, but they have to go into the woods with only their hands. They'll of course be allowed to use whatever tools they fashion while hunting, but that's it.

Weak argument. Nature gifted wolves enhanced hearing, superior smell, night vision, and fangs. Nature gifted humans the ability to pre-plan. A human hunters ability comes with caveat that we wont enter a hunt until we are assured success. Just like a Wolf hunting a sick caribou with 12 of his friends.There's no fair fights unless by fair the wolf and the human are placed in a stadium at noon and the wolf has his fangs filed and mace applied to his face.

simplicimus:Mid_mo_mad_man: Regular sport hunting of wolves will allow their numbers to grow and secure their surviving into the future. Its already happen with deer, elk, bears and turkeys in the USA. Sport Hunters not tree huggers tend to be the best stewards of nature. Remember Roosevelt, Audubon, and the other pillars of conservation in America were big game hunters

I understand your point of view, but even without human intervention, the populations would stabilize.

Mid_mo_mad_man:BolloxReader: Pray 4 Mojo: simplicimus: Pray 4 Mojo: ":A few facts -- the wolf population has been stable since 1998 without hunting or trapping. The last Minnesota population survey was completed in 2007, and it established a population range from 2,100 to 3,500 wolves. This year, 400 wolves are expected to be killed during the scheduled season. Another 300 will be killed legally under livestock depredation controls, plus an estimated 300 more will be killed illegally."

Pro-tip:

If you're trying to convince me your position is correct... when you provide "facts"... you should... you know... show me that you didn't pull numbers out of your butt.

So they're planning to wipe out 1/2 to 1/3 of the population? Sounds genetically sound to me./not

According to numbers apparently pulled from the ass of the person that wrote this.

That's the problem.

They know about how many wolves are poached. People have already been poaching them, like they poach every animal.

They know about how many wolves are killed for killing cattle each year.

They know how many licenses are being handed out for hunters to hunt wolves. They are guessing how many wolves will be taken.

It looks like they can account for about 600 wolves outside of ordinary game hunting. I don't know how they are estimating the game hunting-- only one per hunter, only so many licenses, and a certain percent will be successful, perhaps? Or perhaps they are allowing a total of 400 wolves to be taken legally, first come first served. Not a hunter, so I don't know how they balance such things out but I know that in Indiana they estimate how many deer will be killed when they allow deer hunting in state parks. Someone's got a formula.

Anyway, I know the first two numbers are easily projected because they have already been doing those things.

Turning wolves into game will ensure less poaching. Big game hunters tend to police themselves very well and will not stand for stealing/poaching of animals. Hunting of w ...

Yep.

Even if those numbers are completely accurate... they are dependent figures. Also... the data I looked up pretty quick show that the population increased 20% from 1998 to 2007. So the "facts" in this piece setting off my bullshiat detector appears to be valid.

Write all the op-ed pieces you want if you're trying to save the wolves. I got no issue with that... but if you're going to lay out "facts"... then farking back them up. Making up fairy tales only weakens your position.

And I would guess... if this were an editorial about the need to have the population of wolves thinned out and laying out 'facts' that are not backed up... the Fark tree hugger patrol would be here ripping it apart. Just cause it backs your position doesn't make it okay.

kendelrio:simplicimus: Mid_mo_mad_man: Regular sport hunting of wolves will allow their numbers to grow and secure their surviving into the future. Its already happen with deer, elk, bears and turkeys in the USA. Sport Hunters not tree huggers tend to be the best stewards of nature. Remember Roosevelt, Audubon, and the other pillars of conservation in America were big game hunters

I understand your point of view, but even without human intervention, the populations would stabilize.

If you're trying to convince me your position is correct... when you provide "facts"... you should... you know... show me that you didn't pull numbers out of your butt.

Frankly the specific numbers don't matter all that much. If there is an important apex predator whose populations, numbering only two or three thousand, are only just recovered after being hunted nearly to extinction -- AND it is already very likely that some will be killed due to livestock depredation laws -- it seems plainly obvious that we should restrict any other activity that will have any impact on their numbers. Their population is not large, even now; WHY should we be allowing people to shoot them at all??

You silly sons of biatches! This is about showing the wolves who boss. Make sure they don't get too comfortable with us and start eating your babies out of your front yard.

Here in New Mexico, they reintroduced the Mexican Gray Wolf, but you still get news articles about how ranchers say they are a menace, and lot of them get shot on sight, even though they are supposedly protected. *sigh*

Subtle_Canary:vwarb: How about we allow the wolf hunting season these people so badly desire, but they have to go into the woods with only their hands. They'll of course be allowed to use whatever tools they fashion while hunting, but that's it.

Weak argument. Nature gifted wolves enhanced hearing, superior smell, night vision, and fangs. Nature gifted humans the ability to pre-plan. A human hunters ability comes with caveat that we wont enter a hunt until we are assured success. Just like a Wolf hunting a sick caribou with 12 of his friends.There's no fair fights unless by fair the wolf and the human are placed in a stadium at noon and the wolf has his fangs filed and mace applied to his face.

Id watch that.

As someone said upthread, humans are the only real "apex predator." The rest of nature exists solely by our decision to preserve it. If we're going to just kill things for fun when we have absolutely no chance of failure, then let's stop being coy and just wipe all the other animals out. Or, if we're going to claim we're killing for sport, let's make it actually sporting.

/I always feel like I seem way too hostile when people can't hear my voice.

Mid_mo_mad_man:Regular sport hunting of wolves will allow their numbers to grow and secure their surviving into the future. Its already happen with deer, elk, bears and turkeys in the USA. Sport Hunters not tree huggers tend to be the best stewards of nature. Remember Roosevelt, Audubon, and the other pillars of conservation in America were big game hunters

Many hunters have a different notion of what the stewardship of nature entails. Among other things is making sure the lucrative hunting industry is not impacted. To that end the numbers of competitor species (cougars and wolves especially) are controlled not to achieve natural balance, but to allow for sufficient game for sports hunters. Nature isn't so much protected as 'managed'.